Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidentiary assessment

Legal area

Court

30 Jul 2025

EZIOKWU CHRISTIAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3167
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL463/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any grounds in his Form 86 or at the hearing and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were open to it on the available materials, so the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable.
10 Jun 2025

香港特別行政區訴劉偉傑

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2486
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA256/2024

On the whole evidence the credible undercover eyewitness (PW1) and the expert (PW2) established that the gathering was a triad society activity and that the appellant knowingly participated; the conviction was therefore safe on rehearing; sentencing, while requiring deterrence, warranted reduction in light of personal mitigation and remote non-custodial record.
9 Sept 2022

HKSAR v. ALI RUSTAM

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2945
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA512/2021

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the Magistrate's refusal to award costs was not based on any reasonable view of the facts and was internally inconsistent; the appellant was therefore entitled to costs for the trial and on the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.
23 Jan 2020

香港特別行政區訴劉觀華

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 926
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA460/2019

The conviction was upheld because the trial judge reasonably found on the video, photographs and admissions that the appellant approached a marked 'SLOW' pedestrian crossing with visible pedestrians and nonetheless maintained about 40 km/h instead of slowing to a speed that would permit immediate braking; that failure constituted lack of the requisite care and attention and supported a finding of careless driving beyond reasonable doubt.
3 Feb 2016

香港特別行政區訴梁國雄

Citation

香港特別行政區訴梁國雄
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA531/2015

The court held that although the appellant may have genuinely believed he needed to protect himself, the deliberate act of poking the complainant in the face two seconds after looking at her was not a reasonable or proportionate means of self-defence in the circumstances; therefore the magistrate's review decision convicting the appellant of common assault was correct and must be upheld.
12 Nov 2014

HKSAR v. SHAM MAN WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. SHAM MAN WAI
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC31/2014

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because there was no reasonably arguable basis that a substantial and grave injustice had occurred, no point of law of great and general importance arose, and the Court would not reweigh factual findings on a leave application to the Final Court.
8 Aug 2007

HKSAR v. CATACUTAN, PRESLYN-SAGA

Citation

HKSAR v. CATACUTAN, PRESLYN-SAGA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA31/2007

The Court held the Magistrate's factual findings were not unsafe and the convictions were supported by evidence and correct application of the Ghosh test; although there was some question whether the passport photograph may have been taken from a dustbin, the conviction for theft could stand on the other photographs; however the sentencing judge had formed an exaggerated view of the appellant's role and harm caused, so the Court reduced each concurrent term by half, reducing total imprisonment from 6 to 3 months.
21 Oct 2004

HUI WAI CHEUNG v. YAT FAI ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUI WAI CHEUNG v. YAT FAI ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC221/2003

On the facts the written Agreement committed the applicant to perform the work at a fixed rate with exposure to profit and loss; the parties' relationship changed from employee to subcontractor and was not simply a mislabelled employment relationship, therefore the applicant was not an employee and is not entitled to employees' compensation.
30 Mar 2000

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI WO AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI WO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA825/1999

The Magistrate properly evaluated the totality of the evidence — congregation of vehicles, high speed, close proximity, noisy engines/tyres, route and roadblock funneling, and credible police observation — and his findings that racing occurred and that each appellant was involved were open to him; there was no defence evidence to undermine the prosecution case, and custodial sentences were appropriate for deterrence and public safety.
23 Jun 1998

HKSAR v. THE GARDEN CO., LTD.

Citation

HKSAR v. THE GARDEN CO., LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA214/1998

The appeal was allowed and conviction quashed because the trial Magistrate accepted defence evidence but did not consider the statutory defence under s.53(3); given Smedleys and the statutory framework, that omission was a material irregularity requiring a retrial so that the trial court can apply the correct legal test to the defence evidence.